COURT OPENS PATH FOR STUDENT SUITS IN SEX-BIAS CASES

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Federal law barring sex discrimination in schools and colleges permits students to sue for damages for sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination.

In a surprisingly broad 9-to-0 decision, the Court rejected the Bush Administration's argument that the law, Title IX of a 1972 education law, did not authorize monetary damages as a remedy for illegal discrimination.

In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of Federal civil rights laws, so lawyers for women's groups expressed relief about today's decision and praised it. They predicted that it would convert the little-used 20-year-old law into a powerful new weapon against sex discrimination on campus. 'Enormous Push for Equity'

"Having a real remedy will give an enormous push for equity," Marcia Greenberger, director of the National Women's Law Center, said in an interview. She saw the decision as a victory "that opens up Title IX dramatically" and will promote more fairness in schools and colleges.

Until now, there have been few lawsuits under Title IX. Although it is impossible to predict whether today's ruling will increase the number significantly, there is no doubt that it offers a specific new remedy to students -- men as well as women -- who feel they have been the victims of sex bias. But it was not immediately clear whether the ruling can be applied retroactively.

The new civil rights law that was passed in the last session of Congress made damages for sex discrimination available for the first time. But that law applies only in the context of employment discrimination and so does not apply to students.

The decision today overturned a ruling by a Federal appeals court in Atlanta. That court had dismissed a Title IX suit against a Georgia school district brought by a high school student who charged that school officials had failed to stop a teacher from forcing unwanted sexual attention on her for more than a year. Remedies Were Limited

The appeals court, in a decision that the Bush Administration asked the Supreme Court to uphold, said that Title IX authorized suits only for back pay or for an injunction ordering an end to the illegal activity. These remedies are useless to most students, who receive no pay in the first place and who will have typically graduated and cut their ties to a school by the time a lawsuit can result in an injunction.

Congress did not specify the remedies available under the 1972 law, which outlawed sex discrimination in any "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," a description that covers all public schools and colleges as well as many private ones. The Administration argued that unless Congress explicitly provides for damages, the courts should not make a damage remedy available.

But Justice Byron R. White's opinion for the Court today took a directly opposite approach, concluding that "we presume the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise."

"This principle has deep roots in our jurisprudence," Justice White said, noting that the Court has held in a "long line of cases" that "if a right of action exists to enforce a Federal right and Congress is silent on the question of remedies, a Federal court may order any appropriate relief." Strong Words by White

In his opinion, Justice White adopted an impatient, almost scolding tone toward the Administration. He said the remedies suggested by the Government of back pay or an injunction "are clearly inadequate" in a case like this. The Administration's approach would leave the student "remediless," he said.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist concurred. They suggested that the Court was wrong to have concluded, in a 1979 decision, that private individuals could sue under Title IX at all. But they said that because Congress had clearly endorsed that decision in subsequent legislation, "it is too late in the day" to rule now that damages should not be available.

Whether private lawsuits of any kind are authorized by Title IX is an important question that hovered in the background of this case. Congress did not say explicitly that the law could be used for individual lawsuits. Rather, it provided that the Federal Government could cut off Federal funds for any school that engaged in illegal discrimination.

But in a 1979 decision, the Supreme Court permitted a Title IX lawsuit by a woman who contended that she had been denied entrance to medical school because of sex discrimination. "We have no occasion here to reconsider that decision," Justice White said today. The Bush Administration had initially suggested, somewhat obliquely, that the Court reopen the issue, but it did not press the argument.

The case decided today, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, No. 90-918, began with a lawsuit filed in 1988 by Christine Franklin against the Gwinnett County, Ga., school system. Ms. Franklin, then a high school student, contended that for more than a year a teacher had pursued her and forced sexual relations on her. She said that school officials were aware of the situation but that they took no action to stop it and discouraged her from pressing criminal charges. The teacher eventually resigned, and the school closed its investigation.

The Federal District Court in Georgia dismissed Ms. Franklin's lawsuit in a decision that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed in 1990.

The decision today has implications for two other civil rights laws that the Court has treated as closely related to Title IX. One is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in programs receiving Federal money. The other is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against handicapped people in programs receiving Federal funds.

The availability of damage remedies under these laws has been unclear. The decision today indicates that the Court, if presented with the issue in future cases, is likely to find a damage remedy under those laws also.

The decision today also means that Title IX suits will be tried before juries rather than before judges alone, because the Constitution provides a right to jury trial in civil suits that involve damages. Juries are often viewed as more sympathetic to plaintiffs in discrimination suits than are judges. Ruling on Government Workers

In another decision today, the Court ruled unanimously that the Constitution does not give government employees a constitutional right to a safe workplace. Justice Stevens wrote the decision in Collins v. Harker Heights, Tex., No. 90-1279, which affirmed a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans.

But the Court disagreed with the rationale the appeals court had used in dismissing a lawsuit against the Texas city by the widow of a sanitation worker who died while cleaning a sewer line. The appeals court had ruled that such lawsuits could prevail against a city only with proof that the city had engaged in an "abuse of governmental power" toward its employees, a particularly burdensome standard of proof that had alarmed public employee unions and civil rights lawyers.

Justice Stevens said that the local governments should not have this extra level of protection against suits by their employees. However, he said, the Court had never recognized the basis for this particular lawsuit, which asserted a right under the 14th Amendment's due process clause to a safe work environment.

A version of this article appears in print on February 27, 1992, on Page A00001 of the National edition with the headline: COURT OPENS PATH FOR STUDENT SUITS IN SEX-BIAS CASES. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe